According to leading African American community activists, they are hearing from sources inside City Hall that Democratic City Council member Jewel CANNADA-WYNN is expected to endorse Pensacola mayor Ashton HAYWARD, perhaps as soon as this week. These reports cannot be confirmed. Cannada-Wynn stopped answering my phone calls back in May.
But, these unconfirmed reports do make sense in the context of everything Cannada-Wynn has done to close Morris Court Park and deceive her constitutents throughout her successful re-election campaign in 2016.
Previous public disclosures and CJ's Street Report articles have proven that Cannada-Wynn had at least one meeting with Dr. SINGH, head of the Area Housing Commission (AHC), prior to September 16, 2016 to discuss returning Morris Court Park to the AHC.
Both Cannada-Wynn and Dr. Singh have failed to comply with public records requests (PRR) to specify when that prior meeting(s) occurred.
In response to my PRR W001587-051217 asking for "the specific date of this meeting prior to September 16, 2016.... includ[ing] letters, emails, memoranda, and calendar or diary entries of the meeting" all I received was information already in the public domain that shed no light on any prior meeting(s) between Cannada-Wynn and Dr. Singh.
I also submitted PRR W001858-051217 coming at the problem a different way. In this request, I asked for "all documentation generated by or received by the Area Housing Commission regarding Morris Court Park from 1 January 2016 to 12 May 2017."
The information I received was the same given for W001587-051217.
In other words, neither Cannada-Wynn nor Dr. Singh want to disclose when they met prior to September 16, 2016. Now, the language "prior meeting" does not necessarily exclude that there was more than one meeting. The "prior meeting" could mean the last meeting in a series of meetings.
I also submitted PRR W001859-051217 to determine who ordered Morris Court Park closed and when did they issue that order. Specifically, I requested "documentation generated by or received by the Office of the Mayor (and subordinates) regarding Morris Court Park between January 1, 2016 and May 12, 2017. And, to request all documentation received by or generated by the Parks and Recreation Department regarding Morris Court Park specifically focused on the closure of the park. This would include any instructions, directives, and guidance to close the park."
And I received, wait for it, nothing. So, Morris Court Park is ordered closed and there is not one piece of paper, not a post-it note, in the Mayor's office or in the Department of Parks and Recreation ordering the park closed.
Apparently, everyone in Pensacola's city government operates by telepathy, or, they communicate via means not susceptible to discovery via Public Records Requests.
Then, CJ's Street Report discovered through a search of Florida's online public records that neither the man, James A. Wolfe, nor the company, Wolfe Construction located on Nine Mile Road, were certified as contractors. On February 20, 2013, James A. Wolfe, or whoever he is, filed a fictitious name document with Florida's Secretary of State. Two days later, he acquired a tax account for Escambia County. And, by March 23, 2013 the City of Pensacola issued a Purchase Order to Wolfe Construction for $90,510 to improve three city parks.
I then submitted PRR W001865-051717 asking for "Records of all City inspections and approvals of work done by Wolfe Construction on Morris Court Park in 2013."
The response from the city was that "there are no responsive records or documents to your request for public records."
So, a man named "James A. Wolfe," who may or may not actually exist, creates a fictitious company called "Wolfe Construction" located on Nine Mile Road, gets a contract in excess of $90,000 in just over a month after declaring this company exists, improves three parks, and the City of Pensacola has no records of design approvals, permits, or inspections.
What does that suggest?
It suggests one of two possibilities. One, "James A. Wolfe" was someone closely connected to a city official or city employee who manipulated and exploited the city for profit. Two, "James A. Wolfe" was a city employee or city official who could manipulate and exploit the city for profit.
Of course, Wolfe Construction of Nine Mile Road did, in fact, make improvements to Morris Court Park, and presumably Armstrong Park and Estramadura Park. If the company had not done those improvements, surely an investigation would have been warranted. But, since the improvements were done, no one bothered to look at or for the documentation.
Is the closure of the park and deeding the park back to the Area Housing Commission related? I do not know. That may be doubtful.
But, the history of the City of Pensacola's machinations and backroom deals related to Morris Court Park suggest that one cannot rule it out.
What is clear is that the City of Pensacola--the Mayor's Office, Cannada-Wynn, and Dr. Singh of the Area Housing Commission--want to provide the public as little information as possible about Morris Court Park.
The mayor also wants to give Cannada-Wynn all the credit for saving the park and having it refurbished. That is an outright lie.
Public pressure from community activists and County Commissioner Lumon MAY forced the mayor and Cannada-Wynn to back out of the agreement with the Area Housing Commission. Throughout 2016 and into 2017 Cannada-Wynn has been double-dealing and selling-out her constituents.
So, it is entirely plausible that Cannada-Wynn will endorse the mayor's re-election bid this week or some time in the future. She has tied her fortunes to the mayor's. She has proven that her loyalty to the mayor takes precedence over her duty to her constituents.
And, rumor also has it that the mayor and Cannada-Wynn are planning to close Kiwanis Park located on W Romana Street.
Showing posts with label Lumon May. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lumon May. Show all posts
Monday, June 5, 2017
Monday, April 24, 2017
UWF'S PARKS ASSESSMENT STUDY RECONSIDERED
INTRODUCTION
This article is the follow-up article to "Cannada-Wynn Abandons Children in Morris Court." That article highlighted that City Council member Jewel CANNADA-WYNN had conspired off-the-record and off-the-books with the Area Housing Commission and the office of the City Administrator to close Morris Court Park and return it to the Area Housing Commission.
We know this because Cannada-Wynn submitted to the City Council a letter written by Dr. SINGH, head of the Area Housing Commission, dated September 16, 2016, in which Dr. Singh stated that he had called Mr. Keith WILKINS, the deputy city administrator, the previous day and had had at least one prior undated meeting with Cannada-Wynn on the subject of returning Morris Court Park to the Housing Commission.
And we know that Cannada-Wynn was hiding her agenda to close Morris Court Park from the residents because in November 2016 while she telling the City Council her intention to close and return the park, she was also telling the Westside Redevelopment Board that she was working with residents to "deal with" their "concerns" regarding the park.
In fact, when residents found out that Cannada-Wynn, their City Council representative, planned to close the park permanently, after it had been closed for months, Rick's Blog reported that the residents were "not happy" and County Commissioner Lumon MAY wanted to hold a town hall meeting to prevent its permanent closure.
We do not know how many meetings, phone calls, and emails were exchanged between Cannada-Wynn and the Housing Commission, nor do we know when the exchanges first took place, and nor do we know who conceived of the idea of closing Morris Court Park in the summer of 2016 with the objective of initiating the transfer of the park back to the Housing Commission. However, CJ's Street Report has submitted a public records request to try and determine when the ball started rolling and by whom.
What we do know is that by March 2016 the City of Pensacola's Parks & Recreation Department (and presumably its Board) had contracted with the University of West Florida's Sport Management and Public Administration programs to produce an assessment of "how to improve space and resource utilization." The public was invited to attend three public meetings in order to "brainstorm ideas and provide input for park improvements." Under pressure from council member Sherri Myers a fourth meeting was added for her district's residents. And, the UWF professors also sought to have an online sample of city residents to respond to a questionaire on park usage and their thoughts on the quality and problems of the park system.
And we know that when Mayor Ashton HAYWARD and Cannada-Wynn put the transfer of Morris Court Park to the Area Housing Commission on the city council's agenda item 17-00228 they specifically referenced the UWF study as justification, claiming that the study found that "the City’s parks system is overbuilt to an unsustainable level. Based on that finding, the UWF report recommended that the City strategically reduce the number of parks and amenities it maintains and improve service by consolidating resources into regional parks."
The UWF assessment was released on December 1, 2016, more than two months before the mayor's office, Cannada-Wynn, and the Housing Commission had already determined in September 2016 that Morris Court Park should be permanently closed and the park re-deeded back to the Housing Commission. In other words, the mayor and Cannada-Wynn used the fig leaf of the assessment to justify a pre-determined political decision made without public scrutiny and public comment.
The clear implication in the agenda item was that the actions of the mayor, Cannada-Wynn, and the Housing Commission were consistent with and supported by the UWF assessment. In fact, nothing in the UWF assessment can be used to justify closing permanently Morris Court Park.
The UWF assessment (page 6) states clearly that "results and recommendations of the assessment should be used to inform decisions but are not intended to be the sole consideration in future planning." Moreover, the UWF assessment noted that the "conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based solely upon the data available." In other words, other data and different kinds of information could challenge and modify assessment's conclusions, or be pertinent to different decisions being made by the City Council.
The purpose of this CJ's Street Report article is to critique the UWF assessment on the basis that it pretends that UWF and the City of Pensacola can produce and use technical information that is above and untainted by politics, race, and class. In fact, race and class permeate the study--just not in ways the UWF professors fully appreciated.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE UWF STUDY
I have posted two copies of the UWF study. The first copy is not highlighted. The second copy is highlighted for use in this article.
The major finding of the UWF is that the city's park inventory is too large to be sustained. But, then the professors go beyond that technical finding to argue that the city has no obligation to meet the needs of the residents.
According to the UWF assessment (page 8), "Our primary overarching conclusion is that the parks system is overbuilt to an unsustainable level, given its current resources.... The city should not be expected to maintain and operate the current number of parks at the level expected by the citizenry."
I think it is common place in America to assert that government at all levels exists with the consent of the governed--and not the other way around. If the citizenry expect their city to maintain its level of parks and open spaces, is it not the responsibility of elected leaders to find a way to make that happen?
The UWF assessment (page 8) also noted that the City of Pensacola had two options for coping with its large inventory of parks. According to the assessment's authors, "The recommended approach is to strategically reduce the quantity of parks services. The second approach would be to increase recurring financial and human resources to the parks department."
The first approach, if taken seriously by Mayor Hayward, the Pensacola City Council, and the Parks & Recreation Board, would be to act in accordance with existing city ordinances regarding selling city property, holding widely publicized town hall meetings on specific closure recommendations, and undertaking a technical study or studies that examined the tradeoffs between different public policy options.
In short, a "strategic reduction" would involve real costs, potential benefits, and real losses and gains for residents of the city. The assessment itself noted (page 7) that homes "fronting or abutting a passive park space experience a 20% increase in value," while homes within three blocks of a park gain 10% in value. A 20% gain or loss in property value certainly requires that city residents be fully aware of and involved in the decision making.
The second approach noted by the UWF assessment would require the city council and the mayor to find spending within the budget or additional resources to sustain the park system.
The unstated political assumption of the UWF assessment is that being miserly on parks is a good thing.
The UWF assessment found that the City of Pensacola, using the National Recreation and Park Association's (NRPA) Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines (page 19) for its benchmark comparison of Pensacola to other very roughly comparable cities is overbuilt.
For example, it found (page 10) that Pensacola has "more than double the standard number of basketball courts;" it has "over three times the standard number of diamond [baseball] fields;" and, it has "over three times the standard number of playgrounds."
Now, that is certainly one interpretation of the data--if you are a scrooge and miser. On the other hand, if you were a city booster (and put your money where your mouth is), you might claim that Pensacola is super child-friendly and outdoor-enthusiast friendly with lots of safe, clean neighborhood, community, historic, regional, and athletic parks (see pages 15-16). But, that interpretation would require a mayor who actually had pride in the city rather than just turning up at civic events with a smiley face.
The UWF assessment also noted (page 9), in bolstering its claim on over-development and unsustainability, that the city had too many benches (one for every 135 residents), too many trashcans at parks (one for every 123 residents), too many swings (one for every 35 children under the age of twelve), and too much playground equipment (one for every 45 children under the age of twelve). In other words, there was potentially too much comfort, too much cleanliness, and too much happiness for the residents.
Given that neighborhood and community parks are too close to their homes for children to enjoy, with too many swings and playground equipment, and too many benches for the weary to relax on, UWF recommended "eliminating the use of resources to support the unsustainable expectations of many neighborhood parks" while creating regional parks. Of course, it is not the expectations of the parks under threat, but the expectations of actual residents. You know, those parks that you must drive to or try to catch a bus to instead of doing the planet-friendly walky-thingy.
And how did Pensacola get into this catastrophe of building up its amenities for residents to enjoy? Politics.
Yes, the UWF professors complained (page 8) that the "results of the needs assessment are indicative of a long history of responding to political or social pressures rather than making strategic informed decisions."
How dare the elected officials of Pensacola over the decades respond to "political or social pressures" rather than obeying the findings of disinterested, technical experts with objective national standards. What a travesty! What were they thinking?
CLASS, RACE, AND POLITICS IN THE UWF STUDY
To be fair to the UWF professors they recognized that the online survey of respondents was biased (page 11). They noted that "respondents were primarily Caucasian mothers with a median household income of $80,000." Nevertheless, what these upper class white women wanted was included in the study's recommendations--such as a skating rink park and a minimum of six new soccer fields.
While the UWF professors noted that Pensacola's park system was unsustainable and neighborhood parks should be closed--with significant losses in property values to homeowners--they simultaneously recommended (page 10) that the "city should develop a minimum of six rectangular/soccer fields to meet the [NRPA] standard" [emphasis added].
Now, if there is one thing that needs to be noted about American soccer for youth--it is almost entirely white. Or, put it this way. The resources America expends on soccer for youth benefits almost exclusively white children from fairly wealthy or well-off families.
For example, the U.S. Youth Soccer National Tournament Database in their media kit does not even bother to report the breakdown of children by race or ethnicity--just gender.
In June 2016, Les Carpenter interviewed Doug Andreassen, chairman of U.S. Soccer's diversity task force, for the Guardian. Andreassen told Carpenter, "'The system is not working for the underserved community,' he says. 'It’s working for the white kids.'" Carpenter noted that "Money has only hardened the divide between rich and poor, leaving the game to thrive in wealthy communities, where the cost of organized soccer has become outrageous, pricing out those in lower income neighborhoods." In addition to league fees, there is the cost of transportation to matches, lodging for matches, and health insurance costs.
One week later, Mike Woitalla, writing at the Soccer America website, noted that while American youth soccer had a diversity problem (discussing Carpenter's article) that there had been some improvements in providing resources to low-income children to combat the "pay-to-play" system. But, even he agreed that "there is much work to be done to make youth soccer more inclusive."
Sandra Herrera, writing at the Backline Soccer website noted that the pay-to-play system of youth soccer disadvantaged poor and non-white players, and if the child was particularly skilled, even middle class families might not be able to afford $4,500 in travel costs for elite-level tournaments at a reasonably priced elite academy--though costs could soar to up to $12,000.
So, when the UWF professors, listening to white women who came from households with a median household income of $80,000, recommended (page 10) that the City of Pensacola "should develop a minimum of six rectangular/soccer to meet the [NRPA] standard," that standard is based upon a sport that is skewed towards affluent white parents and children. That NRPA standard is not a technical standard removed from class, race, and political influences and considerations. It is just the opposite. Urban soccer fields represent the public policy preferences of affluent white parents that disadvantage non-white, immigrant, or poorer families.
Thus, it is rather ironic that the UWF professors were aghast that the neighborhood and community parks system that had been built over the decades had reflected "political or social pressures" of the residents rather than apolitical, technical experts using "objective" technical standards completely divorced from race and class considerations.
CLASS AND RACE IN PENSACOLA
But, to see the race and class bias in the UWF "Parks Needs Assessment," above and beyond its unrepresentative online sample of respondents, it is necessary to compare its findings with that of another UWF study, the July 2014 "Community Needs Assessment."
The UWF "Parks Needs Assessment" states there are 93 entities under consideration excluding the "Osceola Golf Course, community centers, or city pools" (page 8). The UWF provides a list (pages 50-51) of facilities used by the online respondents. Zip codes are not provided. In reality, the Parks & Recreation website lists 87 parks with the filter on for just parks. Helpfully, it also provides a zip code for each park.
On page 25 of the "Parks Needs Assessment" the Zip Codes used in the study were 32501, 32502, 32503, 32504, 32505, 32507, and 32514. The latter two Zip Codes contain only 1 park (32514), thus reducing the total number of parks under consideration here to 86. The latter two zip codes include some Pensacola households, but the households are really mostly located in the county, if you look on a Zip Code map. Even Zip Code 32505 is dicey in terms of parks and households--with only two parks. Excluding 32505 reduces the number of parks to 84.
The online survey of all seven zip codes yielded a sample size of N=551. However, if one excludes the three latter zip codes, the sample size is N= 473.
The reason I exclude zip codes 32505, 32507 and 32514 is to make the two UWF studies comparable and use the core of the city. Those three zip codes are largely located in Escambia County and thus skew the population and median income figures for the city.
Zip Number Percent Number Percent
Code Online Online Households Households
32501 121 26 2311 (a) 14
32502 20 4 771 5
32503 141 30 7312 45
32504 191 40 5691 35
Subtotals 473 100% 16085 99%
Note: (a) Table 1E, Household and Family Sizes By Zip Code, "Community Needs Assessment," page 9.
According to the "Parks Needs Assessment," the median income of the online respondents was $80,000, meaning that half of the respondents reported a median household income below $80,000 and half of the respondents reported a median household income above $80,000 (pages 11 and 25). But, 57.5% of the sample reported an income between $50,000 and $249,999 (page 25) with an additional 5.7% reporting an income in excess of $250,000. And, the study reported that median household income in Pensacola in 2014 was $46,424 (page 20). Thus, the online sample is heavily skewed towards wealthier families.
We can also see that the distribution of parks (from the Parks & Recreation website) also reflects a bias, if you will, towards Zip Codes that are majority white households and the relatively better off (Table 2).
Zip Number Percent Percent Percent Median
Code Parks Parks White Non-White HH Income
32501 17 20 42 (a) 58 31,851 (b)
32502 15 18 57 43 40,163
32503 31 37 66 34 52,609
32504 21 25 79 21 56,488
Subtotals 84 100 NA NA 46,424 (c)
Notes:
(a) Table 1C, Race and Ethnicity by Zip Code, "Community Needs Assessment," page 7.
(b) Table 1F, Family Income by Zip Code, Median Family Household Income, Community Needs Assessment, page 11.
(c) Table 3, U.S. Census: Pensacola demographic composition, Household Income (2014), "Parks Needs Assessment," page 20.
Table 2 shows that the non-white majority Zip Code (32501) with 14% of the households (from Table 1) has 20% of the parks, while the majority white Zip Codes (32502, 32503, and 32504) with 60% of the households have 85% of the parks.
The majority non-white Zip Code has a median household income at least $15,000 below the median income for the city as a whole, while the majority white Zip Codes (32503 and 32504) have median household incomes at least $8,000 to $10,000 above the city's median income. Only the majority white Zip Code of 32502 has a median household income ($40,163) below the city's median household income ($46,424).
Thus, one can legitimately ask, when the UWF professors recommended in their "Parks Needs Assessment" that the City of Pensacola undertake a strategic assessment making "strategic, fiscally responsible, data-driven decisions" (page 8), did they not realize the distribution of parks in the city already favored richer, whiter households and Zip Codes?
More importantly, if the City of Pensacola were to shutter neighborhood and community parks to save scarce resources, while simultaneously building "a minimum of six rectangular/soccer fields to meet the [NRPA] standard" (page 10), would not scarce park resources probably skew even more in favor of the wealthier, whiter households and Zip Codes?
Would not the same be true if the City of Pensacola closed neighborhood and community parks and consolidated those scarce park resources in regional parks? Would not those regional parks be located in whiter and richer Zip Codes?
The fact that the first park on the chopping block, Morris Court Park, is located in Zip Code 32501, suggests that the mayor intends to close parks in poorer, majority non-white households.
The UWF "Parks Needs Assessment" pretends that race and class have no bearing on these "objective," "strategic, fiscally responsible, data-driven decisions," but, in fact, race and class are already embedded in their data, if they had chosen to look and carry the analysis a bit more forward; and, race and class must factor into those City Council decisions so that the distribution of park resources is more equitable.
CONCLUSION
For Cannada-Wynn, the mayor, and the Area Housing Commission to go behind the Morris Community Park's "stakeholders" and park users, especially the young children, and try to permanently shut this park down without a "strategic review" and public comment is unconscionable.
For Cannada-Wynn, the mayor, and the Area Housing Commission to pretend there is one scintilla of evidence in the UWF "Parks Needs Assessment" that justifies closing Morris Court Park is insulting and a gross misuse of the UWF assessment.
The UWF "Parks Needs Assesssment," biased as it is on race and class and political issues, nevertheless, in the hands of a less unscrupulous and cheapskate mayor actually points to a significant city achievement.
Yes, compared to very roughly comparable cities and national standards the City of Pensacola has more neighborhood and community parks, and more basketball courts, and more baseball diamonds, but doesn't that speak to a higher quality of life for Pensacola residents? If the City Council were to cut the mayor's prolific legal spending--is that not above national standards(?)--the city might have enough money to pay for maintenance and upgrades for children and outdoor enthusiasts.
In my years of government service, I found that consultant's studies usually find what they are asked to find. Apparently, the UWF professors were asked to establish a baseline assessment from which the mayor could start cutting parks for poorer, less-white households and Zip Codes. But, the same study can justify spending more money on neighborhood and community parks in order to maintain and enhance an enviable quality of life for Pensacola residents.
More importantly, the UWF assessment's recommendation that the City of Pensacola should close neighborhood and community parks while simultaneously recommending that the city build and maintain a "minimum" of six soccer fields demonstrates that you can pretend to divorce race and class and politics from strategic decisions. But, it is only a pretense.
Historically, the decisions to locate parks is the result of "political or social pressures." However flawed and biased those decisions historically were against non-whites and the poor, that is called democracy. And now we should make decisions about the quality of life and property values based on more democracy, not less; and, we should stop pretending that strategic, fiscal, and data-driven decisions have nothing to do with class, race, politics, and democracy.
This article is the follow-up article to "Cannada-Wynn Abandons Children in Morris Court." That article highlighted that City Council member Jewel CANNADA-WYNN had conspired off-the-record and off-the-books with the Area Housing Commission and the office of the City Administrator to close Morris Court Park and return it to the Area Housing Commission.
We know this because Cannada-Wynn submitted to the City Council a letter written by Dr. SINGH, head of the Area Housing Commission, dated September 16, 2016, in which Dr. Singh stated that he had called Mr. Keith WILKINS, the deputy city administrator, the previous day and had had at least one prior undated meeting with Cannada-Wynn on the subject of returning Morris Court Park to the Housing Commission.
And we know that Cannada-Wynn was hiding her agenda to close Morris Court Park from the residents because in November 2016 while she telling the City Council her intention to close and return the park, she was also telling the Westside Redevelopment Board that she was working with residents to "deal with" their "concerns" regarding the park.
In fact, when residents found out that Cannada-Wynn, their City Council representative, planned to close the park permanently, after it had been closed for months, Rick's Blog reported that the residents were "not happy" and County Commissioner Lumon MAY wanted to hold a town hall meeting to prevent its permanent closure.
We do not know how many meetings, phone calls, and emails were exchanged between Cannada-Wynn and the Housing Commission, nor do we know when the exchanges first took place, and nor do we know who conceived of the idea of closing Morris Court Park in the summer of 2016 with the objective of initiating the transfer of the park back to the Housing Commission. However, CJ's Street Report has submitted a public records request to try and determine when the ball started rolling and by whom.
What we do know is that by March 2016 the City of Pensacola's Parks & Recreation Department (and presumably its Board) had contracted with the University of West Florida's Sport Management and Public Administration programs to produce an assessment of "how to improve space and resource utilization." The public was invited to attend three public meetings in order to "brainstorm ideas and provide input for park improvements." Under pressure from council member Sherri Myers a fourth meeting was added for her district's residents. And, the UWF professors also sought to have an online sample of city residents to respond to a questionaire on park usage and their thoughts on the quality and problems of the park system.
And we know that when Mayor Ashton HAYWARD and Cannada-Wynn put the transfer of Morris Court Park to the Area Housing Commission on the city council's agenda item 17-00228 they specifically referenced the UWF study as justification, claiming that the study found that "the City’s parks system is overbuilt to an unsustainable level. Based on that finding, the UWF report recommended that the City strategically reduce the number of parks and amenities it maintains and improve service by consolidating resources into regional parks."
The UWF assessment was released on December 1, 2016, more than two months before the mayor's office, Cannada-Wynn, and the Housing Commission had already determined in September 2016 that Morris Court Park should be permanently closed and the park re-deeded back to the Housing Commission. In other words, the mayor and Cannada-Wynn used the fig leaf of the assessment to justify a pre-determined political decision made without public scrutiny and public comment.
The clear implication in the agenda item was that the actions of the mayor, Cannada-Wynn, and the Housing Commission were consistent with and supported by the UWF assessment. In fact, nothing in the UWF assessment can be used to justify closing permanently Morris Court Park.
The UWF assessment (page 6) states clearly that "results and recommendations of the assessment should be used to inform decisions but are not intended to be the sole consideration in future planning." Moreover, the UWF assessment noted that the "conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based solely upon the data available." In other words, other data and different kinds of information could challenge and modify assessment's conclusions, or be pertinent to different decisions being made by the City Council.
The purpose of this CJ's Street Report article is to critique the UWF assessment on the basis that it pretends that UWF and the City of Pensacola can produce and use technical information that is above and untainted by politics, race, and class. In fact, race and class permeate the study--just not in ways the UWF professors fully appreciated.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE UWF STUDY
I have posted two copies of the UWF study. The first copy is not highlighted. The second copy is highlighted for use in this article.
The major finding of the UWF is that the city's park inventory is too large to be sustained. But, then the professors go beyond that technical finding to argue that the city has no obligation to meet the needs of the residents.
According to the UWF assessment (page 8), "Our primary overarching conclusion is that the parks system is overbuilt to an unsustainable level, given its current resources.... The city should not be expected to maintain and operate the current number of parks at the level expected by the citizenry."
I think it is common place in America to assert that government at all levels exists with the consent of the governed--and not the other way around. If the citizenry expect their city to maintain its level of parks and open spaces, is it not the responsibility of elected leaders to find a way to make that happen?
The UWF assessment (page 8) also noted that the City of Pensacola had two options for coping with its large inventory of parks. According to the assessment's authors, "The recommended approach is to strategically reduce the quantity of parks services. The second approach would be to increase recurring financial and human resources to the parks department."
The first approach, if taken seriously by Mayor Hayward, the Pensacola City Council, and the Parks & Recreation Board, would be to act in accordance with existing city ordinances regarding selling city property, holding widely publicized town hall meetings on specific closure recommendations, and undertaking a technical study or studies that examined the tradeoffs between different public policy options.
In short, a "strategic reduction" would involve real costs, potential benefits, and real losses and gains for residents of the city. The assessment itself noted (page 7) that homes "fronting or abutting a passive park space experience a 20% increase in value," while homes within three blocks of a park gain 10% in value. A 20% gain or loss in property value certainly requires that city residents be fully aware of and involved in the decision making.
The second approach noted by the UWF assessment would require the city council and the mayor to find spending within the budget or additional resources to sustain the park system.
The unstated political assumption of the UWF assessment is that being miserly on parks is a good thing.
The UWF assessment found that the City of Pensacola, using the National Recreation and Park Association's (NRPA) Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines (page 19) for its benchmark comparison of Pensacola to other very roughly comparable cities is overbuilt.
For example, it found (page 10) that Pensacola has "more than double the standard number of basketball courts;" it has "over three times the standard number of diamond [baseball] fields;" and, it has "over three times the standard number of playgrounds."
Now, that is certainly one interpretation of the data--if you are a scrooge and miser. On the other hand, if you were a city booster (and put your money where your mouth is), you might claim that Pensacola is super child-friendly and outdoor-enthusiast friendly with lots of safe, clean neighborhood, community, historic, regional, and athletic parks (see pages 15-16). But, that interpretation would require a mayor who actually had pride in the city rather than just turning up at civic events with a smiley face.
The UWF assessment also noted (page 9), in bolstering its claim on over-development and unsustainability, that the city had too many benches (one for every 135 residents), too many trashcans at parks (one for every 123 residents), too many swings (one for every 35 children under the age of twelve), and too much playground equipment (one for every 45 children under the age of twelve). In other words, there was potentially too much comfort, too much cleanliness, and too much happiness for the residents.
Given that neighborhood and community parks are too close to their homes for children to enjoy, with too many swings and playground equipment, and too many benches for the weary to relax on, UWF recommended "eliminating the use of resources to support the unsustainable expectations of many neighborhood parks" while creating regional parks. Of course, it is not the expectations of the parks under threat, but the expectations of actual residents. You know, those parks that you must drive to or try to catch a bus to instead of doing the planet-friendly walky-thingy.
And how did Pensacola get into this catastrophe of building up its amenities for residents to enjoy? Politics.
Yes, the UWF professors complained (page 8) that the "results of the needs assessment are indicative of a long history of responding to political or social pressures rather than making strategic informed decisions."
How dare the elected officials of Pensacola over the decades respond to "political or social pressures" rather than obeying the findings of disinterested, technical experts with objective national standards. What a travesty! What were they thinking?
CLASS, RACE, AND POLITICS IN THE UWF STUDY
To be fair to the UWF professors they recognized that the online survey of respondents was biased (page 11). They noted that "respondents were primarily Caucasian mothers with a median household income of $80,000." Nevertheless, what these upper class white women wanted was included in the study's recommendations--such as a skating rink park and a minimum of six new soccer fields.
While the UWF professors noted that Pensacola's park system was unsustainable and neighborhood parks should be closed--with significant losses in property values to homeowners--they simultaneously recommended (page 10) that the "city should develop a minimum of six rectangular/soccer fields to meet the [NRPA] standard" [emphasis added].
Now, if there is one thing that needs to be noted about American soccer for youth--it is almost entirely white. Or, put it this way. The resources America expends on soccer for youth benefits almost exclusively white children from fairly wealthy or well-off families.
For example, the U.S. Youth Soccer National Tournament Database in their media kit does not even bother to report the breakdown of children by race or ethnicity--just gender.
In June 2016, Les Carpenter interviewed Doug Andreassen, chairman of U.S. Soccer's diversity task force, for the Guardian. Andreassen told Carpenter, "'The system is not working for the underserved community,' he says. 'It’s working for the white kids.'" Carpenter noted that "Money has only hardened the divide between rich and poor, leaving the game to thrive in wealthy communities, where the cost of organized soccer has become outrageous, pricing out those in lower income neighborhoods." In addition to league fees, there is the cost of transportation to matches, lodging for matches, and health insurance costs.
One week later, Mike Woitalla, writing at the Soccer America website, noted that while American youth soccer had a diversity problem (discussing Carpenter's article) that there had been some improvements in providing resources to low-income children to combat the "pay-to-play" system. But, even he agreed that "there is much work to be done to make youth soccer more inclusive."
Sandra Herrera, writing at the Backline Soccer website noted that the pay-to-play system of youth soccer disadvantaged poor and non-white players, and if the child was particularly skilled, even middle class families might not be able to afford $4,500 in travel costs for elite-level tournaments at a reasonably priced elite academy--though costs could soar to up to $12,000.
So, when the UWF professors, listening to white women who came from households with a median household income of $80,000, recommended (page 10) that the City of Pensacola "should develop a minimum of six rectangular/soccer to meet the [NRPA] standard," that standard is based upon a sport that is skewed towards affluent white parents and children. That NRPA standard is not a technical standard removed from class, race, and political influences and considerations. It is just the opposite. Urban soccer fields represent the public policy preferences of affluent white parents that disadvantage non-white, immigrant, or poorer families.
Thus, it is rather ironic that the UWF professors were aghast that the neighborhood and community parks system that had been built over the decades had reflected "political or social pressures" of the residents rather than apolitical, technical experts using "objective" technical standards completely divorced from race and class considerations.
CLASS AND RACE IN PENSACOLA
But, to see the race and class bias in the UWF "Parks Needs Assessment," above and beyond its unrepresentative online sample of respondents, it is necessary to compare its findings with that of another UWF study, the July 2014 "Community Needs Assessment."
The UWF "Parks Needs Assessment" states there are 93 entities under consideration excluding the "Osceola Golf Course, community centers, or city pools" (page 8). The UWF provides a list (pages 50-51) of facilities used by the online respondents. Zip codes are not provided. In reality, the Parks & Recreation website lists 87 parks with the filter on for just parks. Helpfully, it also provides a zip code for each park.
On page 25 of the "Parks Needs Assessment" the Zip Codes used in the study were 32501, 32502, 32503, 32504, 32505, 32507, and 32514. The latter two Zip Codes contain only 1 park (32514), thus reducing the total number of parks under consideration here to 86. The latter two zip codes include some Pensacola households, but the households are really mostly located in the county, if you look on a Zip Code map. Even Zip Code 32505 is dicey in terms of parks and households--with only two parks. Excluding 32505 reduces the number of parks to 84.
The online survey of all seven zip codes yielded a sample size of N=551. However, if one excludes the three latter zip codes, the sample size is N= 473.
The reason I exclude zip codes 32505, 32507 and 32514 is to make the two UWF studies comparable and use the core of the city. Those three zip codes are largely located in Escambia County and thus skew the population and median income figures for the city.
A comparison of the distribution of online respondents ("Parks") and households ("Community") reveals that some zip codes are apparently some zip codes are over-sampled (32501 and 32504). Thus, for example, Zip Code 32501 with 14% of the city's households was 26% of the online survey sample.
TABLE 1
Zip Number Percent Number Percent
Code Online Online Households Households
32501 121 26 2311 (a) 14
32502 20 4 771 5
32503 141 30 7312 45
32504 191 40 5691 35
Subtotals 473 100% 16085 99%
Note: (a) Table 1E, Household and Family Sizes By Zip Code, "Community Needs Assessment," page 9.
According to the "Parks Needs Assessment," the median income of the online respondents was $80,000, meaning that half of the respondents reported a median household income below $80,000 and half of the respondents reported a median household income above $80,000 (pages 11 and 25). But, 57.5% of the sample reported an income between $50,000 and $249,999 (page 25) with an additional 5.7% reporting an income in excess of $250,000. And, the study reported that median household income in Pensacola in 2014 was $46,424 (page 20). Thus, the online sample is heavily skewed towards wealthier families.
We can also see that the distribution of parks (from the Parks & Recreation website) also reflects a bias, if you will, towards Zip Codes that are majority white households and the relatively better off (Table 2).
TABLE 2
Zip Number Percent Percent Percent Median
Code Parks Parks White Non-White HH Income
32501 17 20 42 (a) 58 31,851 (b)
32502 15 18 57 43 40,163
32503 31 37 66 34 52,609
32504 21 25 79 21 56,488
Subtotals 84 100 NA NA 46,424 (c)
Notes:
(a) Table 1C, Race and Ethnicity by Zip Code, "Community Needs Assessment," page 7.
(b) Table 1F, Family Income by Zip Code, Median Family Household Income, Community Needs Assessment, page 11.
(c) Table 3, U.S. Census: Pensacola demographic composition, Household Income (2014), "Parks Needs Assessment," page 20.
Table 2 shows that the non-white majority Zip Code (32501) with 14% of the households (from Table 1) has 20% of the parks, while the majority white Zip Codes (32502, 32503, and 32504) with 60% of the households have 85% of the parks.
The majority non-white Zip Code has a median household income at least $15,000 below the median income for the city as a whole, while the majority white Zip Codes (32503 and 32504) have median household incomes at least $8,000 to $10,000 above the city's median income. Only the majority white Zip Code of 32502 has a median household income ($40,163) below the city's median household income ($46,424).
Thus, one can legitimately ask, when the UWF professors recommended in their "Parks Needs Assessment" that the City of Pensacola undertake a strategic assessment making "strategic, fiscally responsible, data-driven decisions" (page 8), did they not realize the distribution of parks in the city already favored richer, whiter households and Zip Codes?
More importantly, if the City of Pensacola were to shutter neighborhood and community parks to save scarce resources, while simultaneously building "a minimum of six rectangular/soccer fields to meet the [NRPA] standard" (page 10), would not scarce park resources probably skew even more in favor of the wealthier, whiter households and Zip Codes?
Would not the same be true if the City of Pensacola closed neighborhood and community parks and consolidated those scarce park resources in regional parks? Would not those regional parks be located in whiter and richer Zip Codes?
The fact that the first park on the chopping block, Morris Court Park, is located in Zip Code 32501, suggests that the mayor intends to close parks in poorer, majority non-white households.
The UWF "Parks Needs Assessment" pretends that race and class have no bearing on these "objective," "strategic, fiscally responsible, data-driven decisions," but, in fact, race and class are already embedded in their data, if they had chosen to look and carry the analysis a bit more forward; and, race and class must factor into those City Council decisions so that the distribution of park resources is more equitable.
CONCLUSION
For Cannada-Wynn, the mayor, and the Area Housing Commission to go behind the Morris Community Park's "stakeholders" and park users, especially the young children, and try to permanently shut this park down without a "strategic review" and public comment is unconscionable.
For Cannada-Wynn, the mayor, and the Area Housing Commission to pretend there is one scintilla of evidence in the UWF "Parks Needs Assessment" that justifies closing Morris Court Park is insulting and a gross misuse of the UWF assessment.
The UWF "Parks Needs Assesssment," biased as it is on race and class and political issues, nevertheless, in the hands of a less unscrupulous and cheapskate mayor actually points to a significant city achievement.
Yes, compared to very roughly comparable cities and national standards the City of Pensacola has more neighborhood and community parks, and more basketball courts, and more baseball diamonds, but doesn't that speak to a higher quality of life for Pensacola residents? If the City Council were to cut the mayor's prolific legal spending--is that not above national standards(?)--the city might have enough money to pay for maintenance and upgrades for children and outdoor enthusiasts.
In my years of government service, I found that consultant's studies usually find what they are asked to find. Apparently, the UWF professors were asked to establish a baseline assessment from which the mayor could start cutting parks for poorer, less-white households and Zip Codes. But, the same study can justify spending more money on neighborhood and community parks in order to maintain and enhance an enviable quality of life for Pensacola residents.
More importantly, the UWF assessment's recommendation that the City of Pensacola should close neighborhood and community parks while simultaneously recommending that the city build and maintain a "minimum" of six soccer fields demonstrates that you can pretend to divorce race and class and politics from strategic decisions. But, it is only a pretense.
Historically, the decisions to locate parks is the result of "political or social pressures." However flawed and biased those decisions historically were against non-whites and the poor, that is called democracy. And now we should make decisions about the quality of life and property values based on more democracy, not less; and, we should stop pretending that strategic, fiscal, and data-driven decisions have nothing to do with class, race, politics, and democracy.
Monday, April 17, 2017
CANNADA-WYNN ABANDONS CHILDREN IN MORRIS COURT
INTRODUCTION
Trouble is brewing regarding Morris Court Park. City Council member Jewel CANNADA-WYNN wants to close permanently the Morris Court Park and return it to the Area Housing Commission. However, Cannada-Wynn's actions, particularly the timing of her actions and what she has said about the park, raises serious doubts about the real motivations for the park's closure and return to the Housing Commission. And, when considered in the larger national context, the stated reason for the park's return to the Area Housing Commission--providing low-income seniors and special needs persons with housin--might never be accomplished. The park should be re-opened, new equipment provided, and the mayor, Cannada-Wynn, and the Housing Commission, revealing all of their backroom wheeling and dealing.
BACKGROUND
Morris Court Park is located at the intersection of N J Street and W Brainerd Street, according to a map provided by the City of Pensacola to the City Council for the April 13, 2017, for its consideration on agenda item 17-00228.
This agenda item was co-sponsored by the Pensacola Mayor Ashton HAYWARD and Council member Cannada-Wynn for the expressed purpose of returning the park to the Area Housing Authority on the grounds that the December 2016 University of West Florida's "Parks Needs Assessment" found that "the City’s parks system is overbuilt to an unsustainable level. Based on that finding, the UWF report recommended that the City strategically reduce the number of parks and amenities it maintains and improve service by consolidating resources into regional parks," according to the City Council's agenda item proposal.
It is important to note that Council member Cannada-Wynn and the mayor were careful not to state that the UWF study recommended closing Morris Court Park. CJ's Street Report submitted a public records request to the city for the UWF study.
According to the City Council's agenda item, the return of the park was requested via letter from the Area Housing Authority dated September 16, 2016, to Mr. Keith WILKINS, the Assistant City Administrator. But that letter, included in the City Council agenda item 17-00228 and first reported in a Rick's Blog article dated November 14, 2016, also states that City Council member Cannada-Wynn had met with Dr. Abe SINGH, executive director of the Area Housing Commission, prior to September 15, 2016. On September 15, 2016, Dr. Singh had called Mr. Wilkins.
The backroom machinations between Council member Cannada-Wynn, Dr. Singh, and Mr. Wilkins all pre-date the final results of the University of West Florida's "Parks Needs Assessment" by precisely 78 days (15 September to 01 December), not including when exactly Cannada-Wynn first contacted or was contacted by the Area Housing Commission.
Thus, the selection of the Morris Court Park for closure was pre-determined well in advance of the public release of the UWF "Parks Needs Assesssment" study which did not, apparently, specifically recommend that this specific park should be "strategically reduced."
This has all the makings of a backroom deal concocted off the record and out of public view by Mayor Ashton, Keith Wilkins (Assistant City Administrator), City Council member Cannada-Wynn, and Dr. Singh of the Area Housing Commission.
THE MYSTERY DEEPENS
Rick's Blog was the first to report, based on first-hand observations, that "Residents and homeowners in the area have told Inweekly that they aren’t happy about losing their playground. Commissioner Lumon MAY grow [sic] up in the Morris Court area and worries about the impact of losing the playground. He said that he would like to have a town hall meeting to get input for the families in the neighborhood." Rick's Blog further reported that it observed that "playground had been chained and padlocked. A “Danger” signs hung on the gates. The playground equipment was old and needed repair.... A parent said the playground had been closed for months."
C.J. LEWIS, a city resident who recently ran unsuccessfully for a City Council seat and follows city politics closely (full disclosure: a friend of mine), noted in a comment on the Rick's Blog article that Cannada-Wynn's action was highly suspect.
According to Lewis: "Not discussed here or in the agenda item is why Morris Court Park is 'Permanently Closed' as it says on Google Map. However, if you look on the city’s website they have pretty pictures of the children’s play equipment and the basketball courts with no indication the park is closed. Someone should explain why the park was closed in the first place and by who and when. In 2014, the Proposed Project list for Extension of Local Option Sales Tax lists $90,000 for 'Replace equipment' at Morris Court Park.... During the Women for Responsible Legislation candidate forum held on September 22 in city hall Cannada-Wynn said that District 7 had gotten more than its fair share and did not need anything more.... There probably is a very interesting trail of public records to piece together on this issue. I attended the full duration of all budget workshops in August and budget hearings in September. I cannot recall Cannada-Wynn objecting to funding in the budget for Morris Court Park."
Taking C.J. Lewis's suggestions, perhaps the Area Housing Commission and Council member Cannada-Wynn will disclose to the city's residents and City Council the contents of all the meetings they had on or prior to September 15, 2016, as well as the Area Housing Commission disclosing its internal and external discussions of why exactly it needed the return of Morris Court Park. Who is really going to profit from this return?
Rick's Blog reported in its November 14, 2016, article that Cannada-Wynn, one week after her successful re-election campaign, requested that the City Council consider returning Morris Court Park to the Area Housing Commission. Rick's Blog linked to a City Council document for that day's (Monday) Agenda Review (14 NOV) for the City Council meeting on 17 NOV (Thursday).
But, what did Cannada-Wynn say between Monday and Thursday?
On 15 NOV, Cannada-Wynn, as a member of the Westside Redevelopment Board, according to the official minutes, told the WRB (pdf page 4): "Ms. Cannada-Wynn indicated there was a concern with activities at the Morris Court Park, and it has been difficult for the neighborhood. She has been working with the neighborhood to institute a plan to deal with some of the concerns."
According to the official minutes, it sounds like Cannada-Wynn is "concerned" about the Morris Court Park and is "working with the neighborhood" to "deal with some of the concerns."
Has she been lying to the neighborhood? Was she lying to the Westside Redevelopment Board?
How can Cannada-Wynn reconcile that she was meeting in quasi-secrecy with the Area Housing Commission discussing returning the Morris Court Park to the AHC, while telling the neighborhood and the Westside Redevelopment Board that she is working with the neighborhood to "deal with" their concerns, presumbably to keep the park open and functioning?
Something is definitely not right here. Both Cannada-Wynn and the Area Housing Commission, as well as the Mayor's office, need to come clean, as difficult as that may be for some of them.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE
According to the City Council's agenda item 17-00228 and the included letter from Dr. Singh to Mr. Wilkins, the entire purpose of depriving the children of a local neighborhood park is to provide "low income apartment rental opportunities on the property for seniors and people with special needs."
But, that purpose is probably dead on arrival.
According to a Washington Post article, "Trump budget asks for $6 billion in HUD cuts, drops development grants," the Trump administration is going to gut the Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to the Post, Trump will "eliminate funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, which supports a wide range of urban-renewal projects and received $3 billion in funding for 2017.... [R]ecommended for elimination are the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the Choice Neighborhoods program and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program. Cutting those programs—which help redevelop low-income neighborhoods and encourage homeownership..."
In other words, unless the City of Pensacola and the miserly State of Florida are going to provide the funds to the Area Housing Commission, which would provide the "public" side of the money for the "public-private partnership" buzzword for privatization of public property, there probably isn't any money for the "low income apartment rental opportunities on the property for seniors and people with special needs."
CONCLUSION
So, will the City of Pensacola re-open Morris Court Park with new equipment it has already budgeted for? Will Cannada-Wynn apologize for her backroom dealing to close the park and, generously speaking, misleading neighborhood residents about her true objectives and motivations? Will the City Council request that the Area Housing Commission come clean on its hidden agenda? In this city nothing is for certain. I will not hold my breath waiting.
Trouble is brewing regarding Morris Court Park. City Council member Jewel CANNADA-WYNN wants to close permanently the Morris Court Park and return it to the Area Housing Commission. However, Cannada-Wynn's actions, particularly the timing of her actions and what she has said about the park, raises serious doubts about the real motivations for the park's closure and return to the Housing Commission. And, when considered in the larger national context, the stated reason for the park's return to the Area Housing Commission--providing low-income seniors and special needs persons with housin--might never be accomplished. The park should be re-opened, new equipment provided, and the mayor, Cannada-Wynn, and the Housing Commission, revealing all of their backroom wheeling and dealing.
BACKGROUND
Morris Court Park is located at the intersection of N J Street and W Brainerd Street, according to a map provided by the City of Pensacola to the City Council for the April 13, 2017, for its consideration on agenda item 17-00228.
This agenda item was co-sponsored by the Pensacola Mayor Ashton HAYWARD and Council member Cannada-Wynn for the expressed purpose of returning the park to the Area Housing Authority on the grounds that the December 2016 University of West Florida's "Parks Needs Assessment" found that "the City’s parks system is overbuilt to an unsustainable level. Based on that finding, the UWF report recommended that the City strategically reduce the number of parks and amenities it maintains and improve service by consolidating resources into regional parks," according to the City Council's agenda item proposal.
It is important to note that Council member Cannada-Wynn and the mayor were careful not to state that the UWF study recommended closing Morris Court Park. CJ's Street Report submitted a public records request to the city for the UWF study.
According to the City Council's agenda item, the return of the park was requested via letter from the Area Housing Authority dated September 16, 2016, to Mr. Keith WILKINS, the Assistant City Administrator. But that letter, included in the City Council agenda item 17-00228 and first reported in a Rick's Blog article dated November 14, 2016, also states that City Council member Cannada-Wynn had met with Dr. Abe SINGH, executive director of the Area Housing Commission, prior to September 15, 2016. On September 15, 2016, Dr. Singh had called Mr. Wilkins.
The backroom machinations between Council member Cannada-Wynn, Dr. Singh, and Mr. Wilkins all pre-date the final results of the University of West Florida's "Parks Needs Assessment" by precisely 78 days (15 September to 01 December), not including when exactly Cannada-Wynn first contacted or was contacted by the Area Housing Commission.
Thus, the selection of the Morris Court Park for closure was pre-determined well in advance of the public release of the UWF "Parks Needs Assesssment" study which did not, apparently, specifically recommend that this specific park should be "strategically reduced."
This has all the makings of a backroom deal concocted off the record and out of public view by Mayor Ashton, Keith Wilkins (Assistant City Administrator), City Council member Cannada-Wynn, and Dr. Singh of the Area Housing Commission.
THE MYSTERY DEEPENS
Rick's Blog was the first to report, based on first-hand observations, that "Residents and homeowners in the area have told Inweekly that they aren’t happy about losing their playground. Commissioner Lumon MAY grow [sic] up in the Morris Court area and worries about the impact of losing the playground. He said that he would like to have a town hall meeting to get input for the families in the neighborhood." Rick's Blog further reported that it observed that "playground had been chained and padlocked. A “Danger” signs hung on the gates. The playground equipment was old and needed repair.... A parent said the playground had been closed for months."
C.J. LEWIS, a city resident who recently ran unsuccessfully for a City Council seat and follows city politics closely (full disclosure: a friend of mine), noted in a comment on the Rick's Blog article that Cannada-Wynn's action was highly suspect.
According to Lewis: "Not discussed here or in the agenda item is why Morris Court Park is 'Permanently Closed' as it says on Google Map. However, if you look on the city’s website they have pretty pictures of the children’s play equipment and the basketball courts with no indication the park is closed. Someone should explain why the park was closed in the first place and by who and when. In 2014, the Proposed Project list for Extension of Local Option Sales Tax lists $90,000 for 'Replace equipment' at Morris Court Park.... During the Women for Responsible Legislation candidate forum held on September 22 in city hall Cannada-Wynn said that District 7 had gotten more than its fair share and did not need anything more.... There probably is a very interesting trail of public records to piece together on this issue. I attended the full duration of all budget workshops in August and budget hearings in September. I cannot recall Cannada-Wynn objecting to funding in the budget for Morris Court Park."
Taking C.J. Lewis's suggestions, perhaps the Area Housing Commission and Council member Cannada-Wynn will disclose to the city's residents and City Council the contents of all the meetings they had on or prior to September 15, 2016, as well as the Area Housing Commission disclosing its internal and external discussions of why exactly it needed the return of Morris Court Park. Who is really going to profit from this return?
Rick's Blog reported in its November 14, 2016, article that Cannada-Wynn, one week after her successful re-election campaign, requested that the City Council consider returning Morris Court Park to the Area Housing Commission. Rick's Blog linked to a City Council document for that day's (Monday) Agenda Review (14 NOV) for the City Council meeting on 17 NOV (Thursday).
But, what did Cannada-Wynn say between Monday and Thursday?
On 15 NOV, Cannada-Wynn, as a member of the Westside Redevelopment Board, according to the official minutes, told the WRB (pdf page 4): "Ms. Cannada-Wynn indicated there was a concern with activities at the Morris Court Park, and it has been difficult for the neighborhood. She has been working with the neighborhood to institute a plan to deal with some of the concerns."
According to the official minutes, it sounds like Cannada-Wynn is "concerned" about the Morris Court Park and is "working with the neighborhood" to "deal with some of the concerns."
Has she been lying to the neighborhood? Was she lying to the Westside Redevelopment Board?
How can Cannada-Wynn reconcile that she was meeting in quasi-secrecy with the Area Housing Commission discussing returning the Morris Court Park to the AHC, while telling the neighborhood and the Westside Redevelopment Board that she is working with the neighborhood to "deal with" their concerns, presumbably to keep the park open and functioning?
Something is definitely not right here. Both Cannada-Wynn and the Area Housing Commission, as well as the Mayor's office, need to come clean, as difficult as that may be for some of them.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE
According to the City Council's agenda item 17-00228 and the included letter from Dr. Singh to Mr. Wilkins, the entire purpose of depriving the children of a local neighborhood park is to provide "low income apartment rental opportunities on the property for seniors and people with special needs."
But, that purpose is probably dead on arrival.
According to a Washington Post article, "Trump budget asks for $6 billion in HUD cuts, drops development grants," the Trump administration is going to gut the Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to the Post, Trump will "eliminate funding for the Community Development Block Grant program, which supports a wide range of urban-renewal projects and received $3 billion in funding for 2017.... [R]ecommended for elimination are the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the Choice Neighborhoods program and the Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program. Cutting those programs—which help redevelop low-income neighborhoods and encourage homeownership..."
In other words, unless the City of Pensacola and the miserly State of Florida are going to provide the funds to the Area Housing Commission, which would provide the "public" side of the money for the "public-private partnership" buzzword for privatization of public property, there probably isn't any money for the "low income apartment rental opportunities on the property for seniors and people with special needs."
CONCLUSION
So, will the City of Pensacola re-open Morris Court Park with new equipment it has already budgeted for? Will Cannada-Wynn apologize for her backroom dealing to close the park and, generously speaking, misleading neighborhood residents about her true objectives and motivations? Will the City Council request that the Area Housing Commission come clean on its hidden agenda? In this city nothing is for certain. I will not hold my breath waiting.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
COMMUNITY MEETING ON EAGER BEAVER RECYCLING CENTER
On October 13, 2016, Ms. Ann Walker, president of the Wedgewood Rolling Hills Homeowners Association hosted a community meeting on the proposed Eager Beaver Recycling Facility. Featured speakers included Mr. Howard Jacques, president of the facility who lives in Gulf Breeze; Ms. Jennifer Gay Valimont, president of the Woodlawn Heights Homeowners Association which has long standing disputes with Eager Beaver; Dr. Gloria Horning, head of Justice Escambia, and one of the area's major environmentalists; and, District 3 County Commissioner Lumon May. This blog post provides the videos of the community meeting.
There are a couple of issues to note from the videotapes.
On tape #00122 at 13:50 to 14:10, Mr. Jacques seemingly admits to an uncited code violation. Apparently, his company in Gulf Breeze was turning vegetation into wood chips for six months before he stopped to apply for a variance. That is how it sounds. Perhaps the county commission would like to clarify this point.
On tape #00123 at 00:20 Mr. Jacques states that part of his business plan is to sell wood chips to the massive International Paper mill in Cantonment. While he did not specify how much wood chips he planned to sell to International Paper, it suggests that his operation at Rolling Hills on Pine Forest Road may be busier in terms of the number of trucks going in and out of the facility. In any event, that is a matter for future consideration.
On tape #00126 at 04:00 to 04:44, Ms. Valimont stated that Mr. Jacques's previous company, Eager Beaver Expert Tree Service doing business in Jacksonville in 2008 had been cited for serious environmental code violations. On tape #00128 at 00:35 to 01:20, Mr. Jacques explained that in 2006 he turned the company over to his wife during divorce proceedings and in 2008 he did not control the company. A check of Florida business records shows that while Mr. Jacques was the "Managing Member" of the company in 2006 and 2007, on April 16, 2008, he was replaced as the "Managing Member" by Diane N. Jacques. Thus, whatever violations the company incurred in 2008 were not the responsibility of Mr. Jacques.
Below are the videotapes of the community meeting without further comment.
There are a couple of issues to note from the videotapes.
On tape #00122 at 13:50 to 14:10, Mr. Jacques seemingly admits to an uncited code violation. Apparently, his company in Gulf Breeze was turning vegetation into wood chips for six months before he stopped to apply for a variance. That is how it sounds. Perhaps the county commission would like to clarify this point.
On tape #00123 at 00:20 Mr. Jacques states that part of his business plan is to sell wood chips to the massive International Paper mill in Cantonment. While he did not specify how much wood chips he planned to sell to International Paper, it suggests that his operation at Rolling Hills on Pine Forest Road may be busier in terms of the number of trucks going in and out of the facility. In any event, that is a matter for future consideration.
On tape #00126 at 04:00 to 04:44, Ms. Valimont stated that Mr. Jacques's previous company, Eager Beaver Expert Tree Service doing business in Jacksonville in 2008 had been cited for serious environmental code violations. On tape #00128 at 00:35 to 01:20, Mr. Jacques explained that in 2006 he turned the company over to his wife during divorce proceedings and in 2008 he did not control the company. A check of Florida business records shows that while Mr. Jacques was the "Managing Member" of the company in 2006 and 2007, on April 16, 2008, he was replaced as the "Managing Member" by Diane N. Jacques. Thus, whatever violations the company incurred in 2008 were not the responsibility of Mr. Jacques.
Below are the videotapes of the community meeting without further comment.
Ms. Ann WALKER, WRH Homeowners Association
Mr. Horace JONES, EC Director of Developmental Services
Mr. Howard JACQUES, Eager Beaver Recycling Facility
Mr. Howard JACQUES, Presentation Part 2
Mr. Howard JACQUES, Presentation Part 3
Ms. Gay VALIMONT, Woodlawn Heights HOA
Commissioner Lumon MAY and Dr. Gloria HORNING
Part 1 Questions and Answers
Part 2 Questions and Answers
Ms. Khalifah MUHAMMAD
Monday, September 26, 2016
Mirza AHMAD Ignores County Ordnances
On August 19, 2016, I wrote a blog post, "Mirza Ahmad Danger to Community." That post spotlighted the documented fact that Escambia County's Code Enforcement had cited Mirza AHMAD for having an unlicensed junk yard at 2910 W Blount Street. Among the many violations recorded, one was about attracting mosquitoes and rats. The citation read: "Section 42-196(a) Nuisance Conditions" poses a threat to the health and
well being of residents of District 3--and his potential voters. This
county ordnance refers to the "creation or maintenance of any condition
conducive to the breeding of rats, vermin, flies, mosquitos, or other anthropods that are capable of transmitting diseases directly or indirectly to humans. Sec 42-197(a) For conditions conducive to the breeding of rats, vermin, flies, mosquitos, or other anthropods: "Complete removal of all contributing conditions" [emphasis added].
Well, the saga continues and Mirza AHMAD, who is running against incumbent county commissioner Lumon MAY, continues to thumb his nose at the county's Code Enforcement and Planning and Zoning departments.
He is now engaged in stalling tactics.
To remedy the unsightly, not permitted junk yard, the county wanted all vehicles removed within ten days. But, AHMAD could appeal and apply for a Development Plan Review. This process requires a person to submit plans to the county's Planning and Zoning. This department decides if the property's use complies with the county's land use zoning requirements.
Here is the timeline based on county records of AHMAD simply scheduling and missing meetings and trying to delay the process. In the meantime, his unpermitted junk yard continues to pose a danger to the community because it attracts mosquitoes and rats.
TIMELINE:
26 JUL: Notice of Violation issued for vehicles on property.
08 AUG: AHMAD submits plan drawings one day LATE. County rejects drawings.
22 AUG: Pre-application for site review had been submitted on 17 AUG. Meeting is schedule for two weeks.
31 AUG: AHMAD misses pre-planning meeting with Development Plan Review.
08 SEP: Development Plan Review meeting scheduled for 14 SEP.
14 SEP: AHMAD misses Development Plan Review meeting.
Mirza AHMAD has missed two scheduled Development Plan review meetings. The county is attempting to work with AHMAD and inform of the requirements needed to satisfy the county's Development Plan review. County staff has accommodated all of his requests. Still, he just blows them off.
Why is anyone taking AHMAD's political campaign for county commissioner seriously?
And yet some fairly prominent Black politicians are inexplicably tying their personal reputations to a businessman and political candidate who is unfit for office. Mirza AHMAD cannot be bothered with complying with county ordnances--especially where he is cited for posing a danger to the community.
Hyperbole? On 27 July 2016, on the very day that Code Enforcement cited Mirza AHMAD for violating a county ordnance about attracting mosquitoes and rats, the Pensacola News Journal reported that Escambia County had its second confirmed ZIKA case, citing the Florida Department of Health.
So, we have a businessman running for county commissioner who is operating an illegal junk yard that attracts mosquitoes that could carry the ZIKA virus and he is blithely endangering the community by missing Development Plan review meetings.
Why does not the Department of Health step in and tell him to remove his illegal junk vehicles immediately? Why does this danger to the allowed to community persist?
Well, the saga continues and Mirza AHMAD, who is running against incumbent county commissioner Lumon MAY, continues to thumb his nose at the county's Code Enforcement and Planning and Zoning departments.
He is now engaged in stalling tactics.
To remedy the unsightly, not permitted junk yard, the county wanted all vehicles removed within ten days. But, AHMAD could appeal and apply for a Development Plan Review. This process requires a person to submit plans to the county's Planning and Zoning. This department decides if the property's use complies with the county's land use zoning requirements.
Here is the timeline based on county records of AHMAD simply scheduling and missing meetings and trying to delay the process. In the meantime, his unpermitted junk yard continues to pose a danger to the community because it attracts mosquitoes and rats.
TIMELINE:
26 JUL: Notice of Violation issued for vehicles on property.
08 AUG: AHMAD submits plan drawings one day LATE. County rejects drawings.
22 AUG: Pre-application for site review had been submitted on 17 AUG. Meeting is schedule for two weeks.
31 AUG: AHMAD misses pre-planning meeting with Development Plan Review.
08 SEP: Development Plan Review meeting scheduled for 14 SEP.
14 SEP: AHMAD misses Development Plan Review meeting.
Mirza AHMAD has missed two scheduled Development Plan review meetings. The county is attempting to work with AHMAD and inform of the requirements needed to satisfy the county's Development Plan review. County staff has accommodated all of his requests. Still, he just blows them off.
Why is anyone taking AHMAD's political campaign for county commissioner seriously?
And yet some fairly prominent Black politicians are inexplicably tying their personal reputations to a businessman and political candidate who is unfit for office. Mirza AHMAD cannot be bothered with complying with county ordnances--especially where he is cited for posing a danger to the community.
Hyperbole? On 27 July 2016, on the very day that Code Enforcement cited Mirza AHMAD for violating a county ordnance about attracting mosquitoes and rats, the Pensacola News Journal reported that Escambia County had its second confirmed ZIKA case, citing the Florida Department of Health.
So, we have a businessman running for county commissioner who is operating an illegal junk yard that attracts mosquitoes that could carry the ZIKA virus and he is blithely endangering the community by missing Development Plan review meetings.
Why does not the Department of Health step in and tell him to remove his illegal junk vehicles immediately? Why does this danger to the allowed to community persist?
Tuesday, August 9, 2016
MIRZA AHMAD STILL IN THE CLOWN CAR
INTRODUCTION
On August 9, 2016, downtown hotspot in Seville Quarter, Phineas Phoggs, hosted a candidate forum jointly sponsored by Pensacola Young Professionals, the Seville Rotary Club, and the Pensacola Propeller Club. The Pensacola Chamber of Commerce also participated in questioning the candidates. This blog post covers the two candidates for the Board of County Commissioners District 3, challenger Mirza AHMAD and incumbent Lumon MAY. It is a good thing this was a forum and not a debate. Had it been a heavyweight fight, Ahmad's cutman would have run out of towels and bandages as the blood would have spilt from cuts above both shut eyes, a broken nose, a few missing teeth, and bleeding ears. Ahmad has proven that he does not know the issues. He just throws stuff out hoping that his audience thinks that empty concepts and vacuous ideas will gain him votes. His big ideas for schools is an after-school training program. Superintendent Thomas, who spoke in the last tranche of candidates, explained that in the past eight years the number of technical academies located inside the high schools has grown from nine to sixty. One academy, established with the support of the National Flight Academy, comes with Federal Aviation Administration certification allowing graduates to work on aircraft. Is that vocational enough, Ahmad? In other words, Ahmad's idea is ridiculous. He does not know how the federal system works on transportation issues. May, on the other hand, explained that any improvements to the railroad system or the overall transportation system in the county, would require collaboration with the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, our representatives in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., and other stakeholders. Ahmad appears to have watched too many empty speeches where he thinks that he alone among all the elected officials in the county can fix deep rooted problems.
May is very self-effacing. He does not like to brag. What he did not tell the Pensacola Young Professionals (he's a former member) and the Seville Rotary Club members is that since 2013 he has secured at least $21 Million in program funds for District 3. This included sidewalks constructed ($445,556); drainage projects ($6,674,370); roadway and bridge projects ($9,832,522); resurfaced roads ($2,200,000); street lights ($236,000); a sewer project for Brownsville ($337,000); and, $1,300,000 to purchase the Brownsville Community Center and use it as a job training, recreation, and cultural arts facility. This specific project, begun this summer will be completed in January 2017. Plus, an intern program for the district. And many other accomplishments to numerous to list.
So, the next time someone says, "Lumon's done nothing for the district," give him or her this brief list. I will be writing up the complete list at a later time. May brings home the beef.
This blog post presents the District 3 BOCC candidate forum as it occurred: Opening statement by Mirza Ahmad; opening statement by Lumon May; the transportation question from the moderator from the Pensacola Propeller Club; closing statement from Mirza Ahmad; and, closing statement from Lumon May.
THE CANDIDATE FORUM
On August 9, 2016, downtown hotspot in Seville Quarter, Phineas Phoggs, hosted a candidate forum jointly sponsored by Pensacola Young Professionals, the Seville Rotary Club, and the Pensacola Propeller Club. The Pensacola Chamber of Commerce also participated in questioning the candidates. This blog post covers the two candidates for the Board of County Commissioners District 3, challenger Mirza AHMAD and incumbent Lumon MAY. It is a good thing this was a forum and not a debate. Had it been a heavyweight fight, Ahmad's cutman would have run out of towels and bandages as the blood would have spilt from cuts above both shut eyes, a broken nose, a few missing teeth, and bleeding ears. Ahmad has proven that he does not know the issues. He just throws stuff out hoping that his audience thinks that empty concepts and vacuous ideas will gain him votes. His big ideas for schools is an after-school training program. Superintendent Thomas, who spoke in the last tranche of candidates, explained that in the past eight years the number of technical academies located inside the high schools has grown from nine to sixty. One academy, established with the support of the National Flight Academy, comes with Federal Aviation Administration certification allowing graduates to work on aircraft. Is that vocational enough, Ahmad? In other words, Ahmad's idea is ridiculous. He does not know how the federal system works on transportation issues. May, on the other hand, explained that any improvements to the railroad system or the overall transportation system in the county, would require collaboration with the City, the Florida Department of Transportation, our representatives in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., and other stakeholders. Ahmad appears to have watched too many empty speeches where he thinks that he alone among all the elected officials in the county can fix deep rooted problems.
May is very self-effacing. He does not like to brag. What he did not tell the Pensacola Young Professionals (he's a former member) and the Seville Rotary Club members is that since 2013 he has secured at least $21 Million in program funds for District 3. This included sidewalks constructed ($445,556); drainage projects ($6,674,370); roadway and bridge projects ($9,832,522); resurfaced roads ($2,200,000); street lights ($236,000); a sewer project for Brownsville ($337,000); and, $1,300,000 to purchase the Brownsville Community Center and use it as a job training, recreation, and cultural arts facility. This specific project, begun this summer will be completed in January 2017. Plus, an intern program for the district. And many other accomplishments to numerous to list.
So, the next time someone says, "Lumon's done nothing for the district," give him or her this brief list. I will be writing up the complete list at a later time. May brings home the beef.
This blog post presents the District 3 BOCC candidate forum as it occurred: Opening statement by Mirza Ahmad; opening statement by Lumon May; the transportation question from the moderator from the Pensacola Propeller Club; closing statement from Mirza Ahmad; and, closing statement from Lumon May.
THE CANDIDATE FORUM
Mirza AHMAD, opening statement
Lumon MAY, opening statement
CSX Freight and Transportation Question
Mirza AHMAD, closing statement
Lumon MAY, closing statement
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
MIRZA AHMAD ENTERS THE CLOWN CAR
Mirza AHMAD, owner of Sam's Cars located at 1407 North W Street in Pensacola, is running for county commissioner in District 3 against incumbent Lumon May.
On July 26, 2016, Mirza Ahmad gave a presentation to the Panhandle chapter of the Democratic African American Women's Caucus. I am a board member and a member of their endorsement committee. I had heard from multiple sources that told me what stories Ahmad was telling various audiences. Ahmad loves to play upon community desires--like more jobs--with fantasies and outright nonsense. While there are some very weak candidates running for local office in Escambia County, Mirza Ahmad deserves to enter the clown car.
While he is putting a great deal of effort into his political campaign--he practically wears down business owners with his incessant pleading to put his sign on their property just to get rid of him--he really does not know the issues; in fact, he really does not know which office he is running for. At times he is running for county commissioner; then, he is running for Superintendent of Schools; and, then he is running for president of the University of West Florida. With a very weak grasp of American politics, an even weaker grasp of English, he simply throws phrases out to his audience in the hope they impress. If he were trying to parody a county commissioner running for office, he would be a great comedian. Thus, he enters the clown car.
The following is a synopsis of various parts of his presentation, the Question-and-Answer period, and pointed questions I put to him. Immediately below, is the video in its entirety.
As best I can tell, he is running for county commissioner because the "roads are damaged," "schools are shutting down," the economy (?) is down, unemployment, and there have been no improvements in ten years.
Among his goals are to bring more industries here, open schools in District 3, and look out for our childrens' futures. Bringing more jobs to District 3 and improving the future for our children are admirable goals. But, it is the Superintendent of Schools Malcolm Thomas that closed several schools in District 3 while District 3's School Board member Linda Moultrie was sleepwalking throughout her term of office.
According to Ahmad, some of the major issues are abandoned houses in Brownsville and the Wedgewood dump (Rolling Hills). Ahmad told the audience that the county commissioners never tried to shut it down. He declared, "I want to shut down all of that." I shall return to the issue of Wedgewood below.
Among Ahmad's plans, if he is somehow miraculously elected to the Board of County Commissioners, is to bring in industries, establish technical schools so that children can learn technical skills after schools, and improve something that was garbled. He noted 13 schools had shutdown in Escambia County, he wanted more education, and he wanted the University of West Florida to have both a medical and a law school.
It is doubtful that 13 schools have been shutdown. The newspaper has noted that Escambia County School District has 13 schools in the bottom 300 schools in the state. But, even if 13 schools had been shutdown, that is the legal purview of the school district. If he had disagreed with any of the decisions to close the six known schools in District 3, no one remembers Ahmad attending a single school board meeting to register his objections.
Apparently, Ahmad has never stepped inside the school board's conference room that is decorated with the flags of dozens of technical schools (academies) located inside various high schools. Escambia High School where I mentor has five plus a new law enforcement school opening this school year. Thus, it makes no sense to open after-school technical schools when there technical schools already inside the high schools. What District 3 does need is after school programs for elementary and middle school children.
As for UWF opening a medical school and a law school, surely that is something for the university to decide. But, let's get real. According to U.S. News & World Report's ranking of universities, UWF is a Tier 2 school. According to the magazine, the "most popular majors at University of West Florida include: Registered Nursing/Registered Nurse; Health Services/Allied Health/Health Sciences, General; Health and Physical Education/Fitness, General; and Psychology, General." A Tier 2 university specializing in technical occupations is hardly a candidate to open a medical school and a law school. Ahmad is simply throwing out a big dream hoping his listeners will be impressed.
Ahmad was asked to explain his plan for bringing more industries to Escambia County. He really does not have a plan. What he has is an aw-shucks demeanor that industries tried to come here but the county commissioners "did not let them to come." Specifically, Ahmad was speaking about KIA and Hyundai motor car companies wanting to locate in Escambia County.
I cannot find any record that the these two car companies ever tried to come to Escambia County. In November 2011, the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville published an article on how despite Jacksonville having a shovel-ready "'mega-site'" the city and Florida have not been able to attract car manufacturing or airplane manufacturing. Jacksonville has the only "mega-site" in Florida, a designation meaning that it is ready to break ground on a plant and have it in production quickly. The newspaper noted that Florida attracts mid-range manufacturing companies. Two years later, Alabama.com reported that five counties in Alabama (Houston, Henry, Geneva, Coffee and Dale) and five counties in northwest Florida (Jackson, Bay, Washington, Holmes and Walton) were trying to attract an automobile manufacturing plant.
Thus, while attracting a major manufacturing company remains the goal of the Board of County Commissioners, there is no evidence that the county ever turned down the opportunity to locate KIA and Hyundai manufacturing plants here. And, if they had, it was a long time ago and not applicable to the incumbent Lumon May.
With regard to the Wedgewood dump, later (see video at 4:40) in the Q&A session, he claimed that the Wedgewood dump was a violation of federal law and that the "county was supposed to shutdown immediately" after being told of toxicity at the dump. Ahmad claimed that Wedgewood was still open.
If the Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center owned by South Palafox Properties is "open" as Ahmad assures every audience he has addressed in Escambia County, then how does one explain the "Final Order" issued by the Administrative Law Judge on May 15, 2015, that states on page 33: "The Respondent South Palafox Properties, Inc.’s, operating permit (Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO) is hereby REVOKED."
Does that in any way, shape, or form read like or sound like the Wedgewood dump is still open? It is closed, Ahmad, and the owner has to pay for the cleanup. Duuh. Now, as explained below, there are remediation efforts to cleanup the groundwater contamination. In that technical sense it is still "open," but it is not "open" in the sense that Ahmad meant--that it is still receiving toxic materials.
In fact, the Pensacola News Journal reported on June 8, 2016, that "Judge John Miller released a 24-page document on the ruling. The Circuit Court ordered that South Palafox perform remediation of the groundwater contamination at Rolling Hills landfill, complete full and proper construction of the remedial action system in accordance with the FDEP-approved action plan, and remediate all surface water quality exceedances to regain compliance with the surface-water criteria under the Florida Administrative Code. The company is ordered to comply within 60 days in each instance."
At the 9:09 point of the video, I asked Ahmad which federal law gave the county commissioners legal authority to close the Wedgewood dump "immediately," as he claimed they had a legal obligation to do. Ahmad cited U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 42. There is only one small problem with that explanation. While I stated in the video that it governs the Centers for Disease Control, it governs the establishment of the U.S. Public Health Service, under which the CDC operates. But, it provides no legal authority to county commissioners to immediately close a facility.
Title 40 of the CFR, "Protection of Environment," governs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Generally, the EPA establishes federal standards for things like water quality and delegates to the states monitoring and enforcement. Locally, only Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE) have been able to demonstrate, mobilize, and litigate against a Superfund site in Pensacola and receive compensation--though the Environmental Protection Agency refused to allow its landmark decision affect other communities of color.
Thus, while Ahmad tries to impress his audiences using big words like Title 42, he literally has no idea what he is talking about.
We have about 100+ days to the general election in November. No doubt Mirza Ahmad will continue campaigning and spouting concepts and accusations off the top of his head with great conviction. Just remember, just because you believe a fact to be true, does not make the fact true. Ahmad does not know the basic facts regarding Rolling Hills. Ahmad has no idea what laws are applicable to the Rolling Hills dump. He is unqualified for elected office. Ahmad has no idea what the issues are in District 3.
In fact, he does not even know that the Rolling Hills dump had its permit revoked and had been slapped with a remediation order by the court. What Ahmad is trying to gin up with his false claims is community outrage. He is hoping that community outrage and his false claims will paint an ugly picture of incumbent Lumon May. The reality is Ahmad has neither the temperament nor familiarity with basic facts to qualify him for the county board.
The specific Rolling Hills (Wedgewood) results were the result of the agitation of the Wedgewood Homeowners Association, Dr. Gloria Horning of Justice Escambia, other activists like Barbara Albrecht of the Panhandle Watershed Alliance, Melanie Nichols of the North Hills Preservation Association, Mike Lowery of the Amalgamated Transit Union, and Supervisor Lumon May who worked with the activists, and the other county commissioners, as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection which brought the lawsuit against South Palafox Properties.
On July 26, 2016, Mirza Ahmad gave a presentation to the Panhandle chapter of the Democratic African American Women's Caucus. I am a board member and a member of their endorsement committee. I had heard from multiple sources that told me what stories Ahmad was telling various audiences. Ahmad loves to play upon community desires--like more jobs--with fantasies and outright nonsense. While there are some very weak candidates running for local office in Escambia County, Mirza Ahmad deserves to enter the clown car.
While he is putting a great deal of effort into his political campaign--he practically wears down business owners with his incessant pleading to put his sign on their property just to get rid of him--he really does not know the issues; in fact, he really does not know which office he is running for. At times he is running for county commissioner; then, he is running for Superintendent of Schools; and, then he is running for president of the University of West Florida. With a very weak grasp of American politics, an even weaker grasp of English, he simply throws phrases out to his audience in the hope they impress. If he were trying to parody a county commissioner running for office, he would be a great comedian. Thus, he enters the clown car.
The following is a synopsis of various parts of his presentation, the Question-and-Answer period, and pointed questions I put to him. Immediately below, is the video in its entirety.
As best I can tell, he is running for county commissioner because the "roads are damaged," "schools are shutting down," the economy (?) is down, unemployment, and there have been no improvements in ten years.
Among his goals are to bring more industries here, open schools in District 3, and look out for our childrens' futures. Bringing more jobs to District 3 and improving the future for our children are admirable goals. But, it is the Superintendent of Schools Malcolm Thomas that closed several schools in District 3 while District 3's School Board member Linda Moultrie was sleepwalking throughout her term of office.
According to Ahmad, some of the major issues are abandoned houses in Brownsville and the Wedgewood dump (Rolling Hills). Ahmad told the audience that the county commissioners never tried to shut it down. He declared, "I want to shut down all of that." I shall return to the issue of Wedgewood below.
Among Ahmad's plans, if he is somehow miraculously elected to the Board of County Commissioners, is to bring in industries, establish technical schools so that children can learn technical skills after schools, and improve something that was garbled. He noted 13 schools had shutdown in Escambia County, he wanted more education, and he wanted the University of West Florida to have both a medical and a law school.
It is doubtful that 13 schools have been shutdown. The newspaper has noted that Escambia County School District has 13 schools in the bottom 300 schools in the state. But, even if 13 schools had been shutdown, that is the legal purview of the school district. If he had disagreed with any of the decisions to close the six known schools in District 3, no one remembers Ahmad attending a single school board meeting to register his objections.
Apparently, Ahmad has never stepped inside the school board's conference room that is decorated with the flags of dozens of technical schools (academies) located inside various high schools. Escambia High School where I mentor has five plus a new law enforcement school opening this school year. Thus, it makes no sense to open after-school technical schools when there technical schools already inside the high schools. What District 3 does need is after school programs for elementary and middle school children.
As for UWF opening a medical school and a law school, surely that is something for the university to decide. But, let's get real. According to U.S. News & World Report's ranking of universities, UWF is a Tier 2 school. According to the magazine, the "most popular majors at University of West Florida include: Registered Nursing/Registered Nurse; Health Services/Allied Health/Health Sciences, General; Health and Physical Education/Fitness, General; and Psychology, General." A Tier 2 university specializing in technical occupations is hardly a candidate to open a medical school and a law school. Ahmad is simply throwing out a big dream hoping his listeners will be impressed.
Ahmad was asked to explain his plan for bringing more industries to Escambia County. He really does not have a plan. What he has is an aw-shucks demeanor that industries tried to come here but the county commissioners "did not let them to come." Specifically, Ahmad was speaking about KIA and Hyundai motor car companies wanting to locate in Escambia County.
I cannot find any record that the these two car companies ever tried to come to Escambia County. In November 2011, the Florida Times-Union in Jacksonville published an article on how despite Jacksonville having a shovel-ready "'mega-site'" the city and Florida have not been able to attract car manufacturing or airplane manufacturing. Jacksonville has the only "mega-site" in Florida, a designation meaning that it is ready to break ground on a plant and have it in production quickly. The newspaper noted that Florida attracts mid-range manufacturing companies. Two years later, Alabama.com reported that five counties in Alabama (Houston, Henry, Geneva, Coffee and Dale) and five counties in northwest Florida (Jackson, Bay, Washington, Holmes and Walton) were trying to attract an automobile manufacturing plant.
Thus, while attracting a major manufacturing company remains the goal of the Board of County Commissioners, there is no evidence that the county ever turned down the opportunity to locate KIA and Hyundai manufacturing plants here. And, if they had, it was a long time ago and not applicable to the incumbent Lumon May.
With regard to the Wedgewood dump, later (see video at 4:40) in the Q&A session, he claimed that the Wedgewood dump was a violation of federal law and that the "county was supposed to shutdown immediately" after being told of toxicity at the dump. Ahmad claimed that Wedgewood was still open.
If the Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center owned by South Palafox Properties is "open" as Ahmad assures every audience he has addressed in Escambia County, then how does one explain the "Final Order" issued by the Administrative Law Judge on May 15, 2015, that states on page 33: "The Respondent South Palafox Properties, Inc.’s, operating permit (Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO) is hereby REVOKED."
Does that in any way, shape, or form read like or sound like the Wedgewood dump is still open? It is closed, Ahmad, and the owner has to pay for the cleanup. Duuh. Now, as explained below, there are remediation efforts to cleanup the groundwater contamination. In that technical sense it is still "open," but it is not "open" in the sense that Ahmad meant--that it is still receiving toxic materials.
In fact, the Pensacola News Journal reported on June 8, 2016, that "Judge John Miller released a 24-page document on the ruling. The Circuit Court ordered that South Palafox perform remediation of the groundwater contamination at Rolling Hills landfill, complete full and proper construction of the remedial action system in accordance with the FDEP-approved action plan, and remediate all surface water quality exceedances to regain compliance with the surface-water criteria under the Florida Administrative Code. The company is ordered to comply within 60 days in each instance."
At the 9:09 point of the video, I asked Ahmad which federal law gave the county commissioners legal authority to close the Wedgewood dump "immediately," as he claimed they had a legal obligation to do. Ahmad cited U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 42. There is only one small problem with that explanation. While I stated in the video that it governs the Centers for Disease Control, it governs the establishment of the U.S. Public Health Service, under which the CDC operates. But, it provides no legal authority to county commissioners to immediately close a facility.
Title 40 of the CFR, "Protection of Environment," governs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Generally, the EPA establishes federal standards for things like water quality and delegates to the states monitoring and enforcement. Locally, only Citizens Against Toxic Exposure (CATE) have been able to demonstrate, mobilize, and litigate against a Superfund site in Pensacola and receive compensation--though the Environmental Protection Agency refused to allow its landmark decision affect other communities of color.
Thus, while Ahmad tries to impress his audiences using big words like Title 42, he literally has no idea what he is talking about.
We have about 100+ days to the general election in November. No doubt Mirza Ahmad will continue campaigning and spouting concepts and accusations off the top of his head with great conviction. Just remember, just because you believe a fact to be true, does not make the fact true. Ahmad does not know the basic facts regarding Rolling Hills. Ahmad has no idea what laws are applicable to the Rolling Hills dump. He is unqualified for elected office. Ahmad has no idea what the issues are in District 3.
In fact, he does not even know that the Rolling Hills dump had its permit revoked and had been slapped with a remediation order by the court. What Ahmad is trying to gin up with his false claims is community outrage. He is hoping that community outrage and his false claims will paint an ugly picture of incumbent Lumon May. The reality is Ahmad has neither the temperament nor familiarity with basic facts to qualify him for the county board.
The specific Rolling Hills (Wedgewood) results were the result of the agitation of the Wedgewood Homeowners Association, Dr. Gloria Horning of Justice Escambia, other activists like Barbara Albrecht of the Panhandle Watershed Alliance, Melanie Nichols of the North Hills Preservation Association, Mike Lowery of the Amalgamated Transit Union, and Supervisor Lumon May who worked with the activists, and the other county commissioners, as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection which brought the lawsuit against South Palafox Properties.
Monday, June 29, 2015
REVEREND HK MATTHEWS on Pensacola's Issues
Reverend H.K. Matthews, considered to be the "Martin Luther King" of Pensacola due to his unswerving physical and moral courage in the face of the white community's unofficial, and, official racist Escambia County Sheriff's Office thuggery in the 1970s which framed him for a five-year felony stint in the penitentiary, spoke to WEAR TV-3 on June 28, 2015, at his own H.K. Matthews Park in Pensacola, Florida.
The video below was shot by CJ's Street Report.
The video below was shot by CJ's Street Report.
 |
| Reverend H.K. Matthews, with Ms. Cindy Martin, left |
 | ||||
| Rev. H.K. Matthews Park, 12th Street and Hayes Street, Pensacola |
Reverend H.K. Matthews, Interview, June 28, 2015
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Sheriff Morgan: Lies to Black Community on Videotape
Introduction
Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia County appears to find numerous ways to insult the Black residents of Pensacola and Escambia County. When he is not outright insulting them about their embrace of a "thug culture;" or all their young men being "Super Predators;" or illegitimacy being the norm for young Black girls; or all Muslims are "Nazis;" or, that he as a white man with a Welsh ethnic background is personally insulted because Black folks refer to themselves as "African-American," he simply lies to them--on videotape.
On April 15, 2015, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office was sent a public records request asking for data to substantiate Sheriff Morgan's claims that he made in a 2013 video--specifically, that his deputies walked the neighborhoods of Pensacola and that he had an open door policy for Black residents of Pensacola. The answer the CJ's Street Report received is indicative of the disdain this Sheriff has for the public.
The Montclair Park Meeting
In early 2013, he was interviewed by Escambia County Commissioner Lumon May at a park in the Montclair neighborhood. The commissioner had used the local meeting to bring about a dozen mothers who had lost their sons to gun violence and with the exception of one murder, had been unsolved and to this day almost all remain unsolved.
Sheriff Morgan appeared at the end of the video suggesting that he had come at the end of the event. The good Sheriff of Escambia did not meet with any of the mothers. He did not really speak about the situation the mothers' found themselves in. The Sheriff did not show one iota of empathy.
What he did do is arrive for a photo opportunity to express in his own smarmy, slick way that he cared about the Black community.
On the video clip, Sheriff Morgan stated the following:
"I pledge as Sheriff of Escambia County that we're here for the long pull. This is not an Operation Brownsville where you're going to see one of these picnics and then for the next three years you won't see us again. We encourage our deputies to walk neighborhoods and be in contact. I have an open door policy as you [Commissioner May] do. Come and talk to us."
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office Response
On April 15, 2015, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office received a certified letter containing three public records requests. Only two of the requests are covered in this post.
With regard to Sheriff Morgan's assertion that "We encourage our deputies to walk neighborhoods and be in contact," CJ's Street Report requested the following information:
"The purpose of this Florida statute Title X Chapter 119 request is to receive the following information from the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office for the fiscal years (from 01 October to the following 30 September) 2012-2013; 2013-2014; and 2014-2015:
A list with names and badge numbers of officers, dates and times, of Sheriff Deputies who have walked neighborhoods in order to talk to neighbors regarding non-investigative, non-criminal, non-civil legal matters. Please include the streets these Sheriff Deputies walked and the number of contacts they had with neighbors that were not related to any investigation, or any criminal or civil proceeding or inquiry."
In response, the Sheriff's Public Records office wrote that "there is no such list."
In the 21st century with computers ubiquitous in bureaucracies, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office cannot generate a list of deputies who "walk neighborhoods." The most logical conclusion to draw is that not a single deputy sheriff has walked a neighborhood to meet folks and have a chat.
The second request the CJ's Street Report sent asked for data to substantiate Sheriff Morgan's claim that "I have an open door policy....Come and talk to us."
The CJ's Street Report request read:
"The purpose of this Florida statute Title X Chapter 119 request is to receive the following information from the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office for the fiscal years (from 01 October to the following 30 September) 2012-2013; 2013-2014; and 2014-2015:
A list of the names, organizational affiliation, and dates you have met in your administrative office or at non-public events with persons affiliated with churches, civil rights or human rights organizations, neighborhood watch groups, social welfare organizations, crime prevention groups, drug abuse education/prevention groups, and safe neighborhood groups."
The Public Records office responded that "there is no such list."
How is it possible with computerized calendars and the knowledge that public officials are under scrutiny for whom they meet with that Sheriff Morgan cannot provide a list of people he has met with "in your administrative office" or have met "at non-public events"?
Sheriff Morgan is known to hum a few tunes in Black churches and sing Negro spirituals in order to impress congregants that he cares about Black folks. Its reported that he has preached in some Black churches. And when he is not humming, singing, or preaching, he is recognized by the pastor as "Sheriff's in the house." And yet, he cannot provide a list of persons and organizations with whom he has met with inside and outside his office.
The logical conclusion is that Sheriff Morgan does not want the voters of Escambia County to know who he meets with in his administrative office. It is a state secret. That information is verboten or forbidden, or nitchevo nyet meaning not ever. Sheriff Morgan does not want the voters of Escambia County to know who meets outside his administrative office. That, too, is a state secret. For a Sheriff who thinks other states should adopt Florida's public access law, he has a very strange way of showing that he actually supports the law.
Here is proof that Sheriff Morgan will use any excuse not to meet with civil rights leaders who might have the audacity and the chutzpah to actually ask him pointed questions regarding issues directly affecting the Black community.
In May 2015, Mr. Jerry McIntosh, the second vice president and public relations chairman for Movement For Change, an organization that received $1,000 from the Escambia County Law Enforcement Trust Fund in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, told a town hall meeting that Sheriff Morgan had refused in January 2014 to meet with the Coalition for Justice of Northwest Florida, an informal group of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, Movement For Change, and the National Movement for Human and Civil Rights, attempting to coordinate their efforts to address violent abuses of local residents by Sheriff deputies.
According to a February 2014 article in the Pensacola News Journal, the Sheriff's Office's General Counsel Gerald Champagne wrote a letter turning down a meeting with the coalition of civil rights organizations and local churches that had been "unveiled to the media in August" that "'the organization is not registered with the Florida Department of State, had no board of directors that he could identify, no founding documents that he could identify and no information on what organizations had agreed to be represented by the coalition.'" Mr. McIntosh, the coalition's spokesperson, told the newspaper, "'Since when do citizens have to be registered to talk to an elected official?'"
Another prime example of Sheriff Morgan's indifference and disregard for the Black community came on April 25, 2015. The "Positive Living Event" presented by the New World Believers religious ministry headed by Reverend Rodney Jones, was held at the Western Mark Park across from the Montclair School. Sheriff Morgan was heard on a local radio station saying that his deputies would be attending the event geared towards children and teenagers. Not one deputy sheriff showed up at an event that lasted from 1100 to 1600 hours. Doting mothers who were watching over the hundred or so youth attending were deeply disappointed. They heard that the deputies had been diverted to another event. The non-appearance by the deputies is surprising since New World Believers has received funding from Sheriff Morgan's Law Enforcement Trust Fund: $1500 in 2012, $1800 in 2013, and $5000 in 2014.
Concluding Observation
Sheriff Morgan thrives on making assertions about how much he cares and how open he is to meetings with common folks. He is not. Sheriff Morgan is all public relations all the time.
He confidently asserts that his deputies walk the neighborhoods of Pensacola to meet-and-greet or grip-and-grin, but he does not mean one word of what he says. When asked to provide a list of deputies who have walked the neighborhoods, his office responded, "there is no such list." In other words, he lied.
He confidently asserted that he has an open door policy, but when asked to prove it by providing a list of community leaders he has met with, his office responded that "there is no such list."
There is no such list of who the Sheriff has met with because he does not want the Escambia County public to know who he has met with or not met with. Surely, only a complete imbecile would believe that the Sheriff cannot generate a computerized list of his meetings with community leaders.
Sheriff Morgan lies openly because that is how he conducts his business. It is time for the local media and community organizations to begin holding this lying, impression-management-driven Sheriff accountable.
Sheriff David Morgan of Escambia County appears to find numerous ways to insult the Black residents of Pensacola and Escambia County. When he is not outright insulting them about their embrace of a "thug culture;" or all their young men being "Super Predators;" or illegitimacy being the norm for young Black girls; or all Muslims are "Nazis;" or, that he as a white man with a Welsh ethnic background is personally insulted because Black folks refer to themselves as "African-American," he simply lies to them--on videotape.
On April 15, 2015, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office was sent a public records request asking for data to substantiate Sheriff Morgan's claims that he made in a 2013 video--specifically, that his deputies walked the neighborhoods of Pensacola and that he had an open door policy for Black residents of Pensacola. The answer the CJ's Street Report received is indicative of the disdain this Sheriff has for the public.
The Montclair Park Meeting
In early 2013, he was interviewed by Escambia County Commissioner Lumon May at a park in the Montclair neighborhood. The commissioner had used the local meeting to bring about a dozen mothers who had lost their sons to gun violence and with the exception of one murder, had been unsolved and to this day almost all remain unsolved.
Sheriff Morgan appeared at the end of the video suggesting that he had come at the end of the event. The good Sheriff of Escambia did not meet with any of the mothers. He did not really speak about the situation the mothers' found themselves in. The Sheriff did not show one iota of empathy.
What he did do is arrive for a photo opportunity to express in his own smarmy, slick way that he cared about the Black community.
On the video clip, Sheriff Morgan stated the following:
"I pledge as Sheriff of Escambia County that we're here for the long pull. This is not an Operation Brownsville where you're going to see one of these picnics and then for the next three years you won't see us again. We encourage our deputies to walk neighborhoods and be in contact. I have an open door policy as you [Commissioner May] do. Come and talk to us."
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office Response
On April 15, 2015, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office received a certified letter containing three public records requests. Only two of the requests are covered in this post.
With regard to Sheriff Morgan's assertion that "We encourage our deputies to walk neighborhoods and be in contact," CJ's Street Report requested the following information:
"The purpose of this Florida statute Title X Chapter 119 request is to receive the following information from the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office for the fiscal years (from 01 October to the following 30 September) 2012-2013; 2013-2014; and 2014-2015:
A list with names and badge numbers of officers, dates and times, of Sheriff Deputies who have walked neighborhoods in order to talk to neighbors regarding non-investigative, non-criminal, non-civil legal matters. Please include the streets these Sheriff Deputies walked and the number of contacts they had with neighbors that were not related to any investigation, or any criminal or civil proceeding or inquiry."
In response, the Sheriff's Public Records office wrote that "there is no such list."
In the 21st century with computers ubiquitous in bureaucracies, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office cannot generate a list of deputies who "walk neighborhoods." The most logical conclusion to draw is that not a single deputy sheriff has walked a neighborhood to meet folks and have a chat.
The second request the CJ's Street Report sent asked for data to substantiate Sheriff Morgan's claim that "I have an open door policy....Come and talk to us."
The CJ's Street Report request read:
"The purpose of this Florida statute Title X Chapter 119 request is to receive the following information from the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office for the fiscal years (from 01 October to the following 30 September) 2012-2013; 2013-2014; and 2014-2015:
A list of the names, organizational affiliation, and dates you have met in your administrative office or at non-public events with persons affiliated with churches, civil rights or human rights organizations, neighborhood watch groups, social welfare organizations, crime prevention groups, drug abuse education/prevention groups, and safe neighborhood groups."
The Public Records office responded that "there is no such list."
How is it possible with computerized calendars and the knowledge that public officials are under scrutiny for whom they meet with that Sheriff Morgan cannot provide a list of people he has met with "in your administrative office" or have met "at non-public events"?
Sheriff Morgan is known to hum a few tunes in Black churches and sing Negro spirituals in order to impress congregants that he cares about Black folks. Its reported that he has preached in some Black churches. And when he is not humming, singing, or preaching, he is recognized by the pastor as "Sheriff's in the house." And yet, he cannot provide a list of persons and organizations with whom he has met with inside and outside his office.
The logical conclusion is that Sheriff Morgan does not want the voters of Escambia County to know who he meets with in his administrative office. It is a state secret. That information is verboten or forbidden, or nitchevo nyet meaning not ever. Sheriff Morgan does not want the voters of Escambia County to know who meets outside his administrative office. That, too, is a state secret. For a Sheriff who thinks other states should adopt Florida's public access law, he has a very strange way of showing that he actually supports the law.
Here is proof that Sheriff Morgan will use any excuse not to meet with civil rights leaders who might have the audacity and the chutzpah to actually ask him pointed questions regarding issues directly affecting the Black community.
In May 2015, Mr. Jerry McIntosh, the second vice president and public relations chairman for Movement For Change, an organization that received $1,000 from the Escambia County Law Enforcement Trust Fund in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, told a town hall meeting that Sheriff Morgan had refused in January 2014 to meet with the Coalition for Justice of Northwest Florida, an informal group of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, Movement For Change, and the National Movement for Human and Civil Rights, attempting to coordinate their efforts to address violent abuses of local residents by Sheriff deputies.
According to a February 2014 article in the Pensacola News Journal, the Sheriff's Office's General Counsel Gerald Champagne wrote a letter turning down a meeting with the coalition of civil rights organizations and local churches that had been "unveiled to the media in August" that "'the organization is not registered with the Florida Department of State, had no board of directors that he could identify, no founding documents that he could identify and no information on what organizations had agreed to be represented by the coalition.'" Mr. McIntosh, the coalition's spokesperson, told the newspaper, "'Since when do citizens have to be registered to talk to an elected official?'"
Another prime example of Sheriff Morgan's indifference and disregard for the Black community came on April 25, 2015. The "Positive Living Event" presented by the New World Believers religious ministry headed by Reverend Rodney Jones, was held at the Western Mark Park across from the Montclair School. Sheriff Morgan was heard on a local radio station saying that his deputies would be attending the event geared towards children and teenagers. Not one deputy sheriff showed up at an event that lasted from 1100 to 1600 hours. Doting mothers who were watching over the hundred or so youth attending were deeply disappointed. They heard that the deputies had been diverted to another event. The non-appearance by the deputies is surprising since New World Believers has received funding from Sheriff Morgan's Law Enforcement Trust Fund: $1500 in 2012, $1800 in 2013, and $5000 in 2014.
Concluding Observation
Sheriff Morgan thrives on making assertions about how much he cares and how open he is to meetings with common folks. He is not. Sheriff Morgan is all public relations all the time.
He confidently asserts that his deputies walk the neighborhoods of Pensacola to meet-and-greet or grip-and-grin, but he does not mean one word of what he says. When asked to provide a list of deputies who have walked the neighborhoods, his office responded, "there is no such list." In other words, he lied.
He confidently asserted that he has an open door policy, but when asked to prove it by providing a list of community leaders he has met with, his office responded that "there is no such list."
There is no such list of who the Sheriff has met with because he does not want the Escambia County public to know who he has met with or not met with. Surely, only a complete imbecile would believe that the Sheriff cannot generate a computerized list of his meetings with community leaders.
Sheriff Morgan lies openly because that is how he conducts his business. It is time for the local media and community organizations to begin holding this lying, impression-management-driven Sheriff accountable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)